As Crimea Votes to Join Russia, Ukrainian and Russian Troops Head Toward Border

Voters in Crimea went to the polls today to vote on a referendum, the outcome of which was never in doubt. As Crimea chose to split from Ukraine and join Russia, officials in Kiev vowed not to accept the results and accused Russia of invading mainland Ukraine.

Voters in Crimea went to the polls today to vote on a referendum the outcome of which was never in doubt. As Crimea chose to split from Ukraine and join Russia, officials in Kiev vowed not to accept the results and accused Russia of invading mainland Ukraine. Here are the other major developments:

Russia and Ukraine have agreed to a military truce, which will last until March 21. Meanwhile, troops from both countries are heading toward the border between the two countries.

Acting Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk has called up 20,000 men for a new national guard to tighten the borders and stem the influx of separatists seeking to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty "under the cover of Russian troops."

Russian citizens and children were seen casting ballots in what was characterized as a valid vote with a high turnout by Russian news sources. The referendum was assailed and boycotted by the West, pro-Ukrainian groups, and the Tatar community in Crimea.

Pro-Russia crowds mobbed a government building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, igniting fears that south and east Ukraine could be the next targets to fall under Russian sway.

In a phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed concern about the safety of ethnic Russians in east and south Ukraine. Both the EU and American officials reiterated that they do not accept the outcome of the referendum.

For more of our ongoing coverage, see our live blog below:

11:18 p.m.: With over 75 percent of the votes counted, 95.7 percent of voters were in favor of seceding from Ukraine. Over 81 percent of the population voted, according to RT, which is an impressive turnout indeed. Then again, Voice of America put the turnout at a much lower 64 percent. RT said only 40 percent of ethnic Tatars voted (and the majority of them voted in favor of joining Russia), but the Wall Street Journal said that most Tatars boycotted the vote. Pro-Ukrainian activists also boycotted the vote. Tatars and pro-Ukrainians alike have started to flee Crimea, telling the Daily Beast that they feel threatened by pro-Crimea and pro-Russia groups that have threatened them with violence.

5:15 p.m.: President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone today. In the call, according to the Kremlin readout, Putin reiterated his belief that the Crimea referendum was legal and "completely in line with the norms of international law."

4:37 p.m.: The crisis in Crimea has given Republicans an opening to bash President Obama's approach to foreign policy with great bravado. However, the schism within the GOP has manifested itself with Crimea as well. Earlier this week, libertarian original gangster, former congressman, and former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke out in favor of both Russia's intervention in Crimea and Putin's maneuvering.

“He’s no angel but actually he has some law on his side,” Paul said earlier this week on the Fox Business Channel. “They have contracts and agreements and treaties for a naval base there and the permission to go about that area.”

3:06 p.m.: At the vote in Crimea finishes up, the scene at Lenin Square in the capital city of Simferopol is poppin':

2:40 p.m.: The White House issued a statement rejecting the referendum, calling it and Russia's actions both "dangerous and destabilizing."

"This referendum is contrary to Ukraine's constitution, and the international community will not recognize the results of a poll administered under threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention that violates international law."

2:21 p.m.: In an unsurprising turn, exit polls show voters in Crimea were overwhelmingly in favor of the secession referendum. The count, according to Russian media sources:

12:49 p.m.: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, denounced the referendum. The EU has also issued a statement saying that it will not recognize the vote.

10:42 a.m.: Both Russian and Ukrainian troops seem to be wending their way toward to the border between the two countries.

Here is some footage of Russian tanks heading to a railway station in southwest Russia, presumably to be loaded up and sent west.

Across the border in Ukraine, there were similar reports of troop movements in the direction of the Russian-Ukrainian border:

Ukrainian armour seen today in Artemovsk. Thought to be en route towards Russo-Ukr border near Rostov on Don. pic.twitter.com/L6m5Jjbe9C

10:16 a.m.: Senior Obama administration official Dan Pfeiffer appeared on Meet the Press this morning. He offered up this chestnut on behalf of the White House about Russian President Vladimir Putin and Crimea:

"Is he going to continue to further isolate himself, further hurt his economy, further diminish Russian influence in the world, or is he going to do the right thing?"

He added: "You can expect sanctions designations in the coming days."

9:47 a.m.: Fears that the Russian encroachment may extend further into Ukraine are not without merit. In a phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin not only defended the referendum's compliance with international law, but also added this:

9:28 a.m.: There needs to be a Tumblr devoted to the exasperated facial expressions of Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin. Here he is yesterday with American Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power after Russia issued the lone veto on a Security Council resolution that would have invalidated the Crimean referendum.

9:07 a.m.: The Russian and Ukrainian defense ministers have reportedly agreed on a truce in Crimea. Acting Ukrainian Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh made the announcement today:

"An agreement has been reached with (Russia's) Black Sea Fleet and the Russian Defense Ministry on a truce in Crimea until March 21. No measures will be taken against our military facilities in Crimea during that time. Our military sites are therefore proceeding with a replenishment of reserves."

8:41 a.m.: In case you were wondering who is allowed to vote in Crimea today:

7:44 a.m.: Masha Gessen, biographer of Russian President Vladimir Putin, puts the Russian leader on the couch with regard to his actions on Ukraine. Here's the money quote:

By silencing the last of his critics, Putin is staying a step ahead of the war game he has started. Still, the only way to continue shoring up his popularity is to escalate war rhetoric and the war effort. Putin will continue to succeed only by painting the Western/fascist/Ukrainian enemy as ever more dangerous and the Russian invasion of Ukraine as ever more important. This means he is not interested in a peaceful solution or, as some Western analysts have hopefully suggested, in an exit strategy that would allow him to “save face.” He needs the war in Ukraine to endure and spread. This is terrible news for Ukraine — and for Russia, which will grow only more isolated and impoverished."

- -

It was a tense few hours ahead of the vote on the widely condemned measure. Here were the major developments yesterday:

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has accused Russia of invading mainland Ukraine. This is the first reported presence of Russian troops beyond the Crimean peninsula.

Dozens of armed men wielding semi-automatic weapons burst into the Hotel Moscow in the Crimean capital of Simferopol. The men claimed to be responding to an alert, which turned out to be false. The hotel happens to be popular with Western journalists in town to cover the referendum.

As many as 50,000 Russian protestors marched through Moscow to rally against Russian action and intervention in Ukraine. Russian authorities suggested that only 3,000 participated. Others guessed 70,000.

A vote by the United Nations Security Council to invalidate the Crimean referendum was scuttled after Russia used its veto.

A bipartisan delegation of U.S. Senators visited Kiev to express solidarity with the new Ukrainian government and to renew blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

There were reports of violence in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, where two people were killed and a dozen injured in a shootout earlier this morning.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov failed to reach an agreement yesterday evening on how to solve the crisis.

For more in-depth coverage, see yesterday's live blog below:

Update:

6:28 p.m.: Hours from the vote, the cyber-arm of the Berkut—the Ukrainian elite forces that sought to quell the protests in Kiev weeks ago—is suspected to be hard at work.

I am very depressed today. For those of us, Russians and Americans alike, who have believed in the possibility of a strong, prosperous, democratic Russia fully integrated into the international system and as a close partner of the U.S., Putin's recent decisions represent a giant step backwards. Tragically, we are entering a new period with some important differences, but many similarities to the Cold War.

4:24 p.m.: How does the Russian seizure of a natural gas plant in the Ukrainian mainland warrant the self-defense motive that Russian President Vladimir Putin used in outlining Russian action in Crimea? Good question:

State-owned wire Interfax explains that that gas tower was in danger and the "self-defense" guys just protecting it.http://t.co/nxOZ8N5Wkl

3:53 p.m.: It's broadly understood that almost 60 percent of Crimea is comprised of ethnic Russians, who seem to favor Moscow over Kiev. Of the remaining 40 percent, the Tatars—a Turkic, largely Muslim ethnic group— have come into focus as a community that will be particularly impacted if/when Crimea falls entirely under Russia's sway. Today in Foreign Policy, Dimiter Kenarov placed the precarious Tatar position in Crimea into context.

There haven't been any serious confrontations yet, except for scuffles between Tatars and Russians at a mass protest in front of the Crimean parliament on Feb. 26, but there other reports of intimidation, taunting, and occasional vandalism. Most worryingly, some Crimean Tatar houses in Crimea have been branded with X-marks -- a particularly ominous sign for a traumatized people. In 1944, on the pretext that some Crimean Tatars had collaborated with Hitler's armies, Stalin ordered the forceful deportation to Central Asia of their entire population, roughly 200,000 people, half of whom eventually perished. Before the deportation, similar X-marks had been used to tag Tatar households.

3:39 p.m.: Ukrainian government officialsare now saying that a gas plant in south Ukraine was seized by Russian troops earlier today. Ukrainian troops are said to be stationed outside the plant, which is located on the mainland, just east of the Crimean peninsula.

3:24 p.m.: Samantha Power, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, responded to a question about reports of possible Russian troop movements in south Ukraine:

"Obviously if Russia has compounded what it has done in Crimea by crossing into south Ukraine that would be an outrageous escalation."

2:55 p.m.: Reuters reports that today's opposition protests in Moscow were the largest in over two years. The invasion and annexation of Crimea is popular in Russia, but could also galvanize Putin's opponents. The Moscow demonstration has been characterized as "a sign that his [Putin's] intervention in Ukraine might provide a rallying point for an opposition movement that had run out of steam."

2:07 p.m.: In a potentially explosive development, Ukrainian officials are now accusing Russia of dispatching troops onto the Ukrainian mainland. This would mark the first presence of troops outside the Crimean peninsula.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry issued a protest against the troop landing in the Kherson region near Crimea, and demanded an immediate withdrawal. The ministry said about 80 troops had landed along with four helicopter gunships and three armored vehicles. It said Ukraine “reserves the right to use all necessary measures to stop the military invasion by Russia.”

The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs added that "Ukraine reserves the right to use all necessary measures to stop the military invasion by Russia."

12:37 p.m.: The United Nations Security Council has just voted on a resolution that would affirm Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. Not surprisingly, the measure didn't pass because Russia vetoed it. For those keeping tabs, China abstained.

The resolution would have invalidated tomorrow's referendum in Crimea over its potential secession from Ukraine—at least in the eyes of the United Nations.

Meanwhile in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, which has been the site of some pro-Kremlin and pro-Kiev clashes, two people were killed in a shootout earlier today. Each side has chimed in as Russia claims the violence is due to ultranationalist Ukrainians and Ukrainian officials characterize the flare-ups as premeditated Russian activity.

Just hours before, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry failed to reach an agreement with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in a meeting about how best to end the crisis in Ukraine ahead of the Crimea vote. Needless to say, this will be an eventful weekend.

Most Popular

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer.

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer. Most of the U.S. territory currently has no electricity or running water, fewer than 250 of the island’s 1,600 cellphone towers are operational, and damaged ports, roads, and airports are slowing the arrival and transport of aid. Communication has been severely limited and some remote towns are only now being contacted. Jenniffer Gonzalez, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, told the Associated Press that Hurricane Maria has set the island back decades.

A small group of programmers wants to change how we code—before catastrophe strikes.

There were six hours during the night of April 10, 2014, when the entire population of Washington State had no 911 service. People who called for help got a busy signal. One Seattle woman dialed 911 at least 37 times while a stranger was trying to break into her house. When he finally crawled into her living room through a window, she picked up a kitchen knife. The man fled.

The 911 outage, at the time the largest ever reported, was traced to software running on a server in Englewood, Colorado. Operated by a systems provider named Intrado, the server kept a running counter of how many calls it had routed to 911 dispatchers around the country. Intrado programmers had set a threshold for how high the counter could go. They picked a number in the millions.

The greatest threats to free speech in America come from the state, not from activists on college campuses.

The American left is waging war on free speech. That’s the consensus from center-left to far right; even Nazis and white supremacists seek to wave the First Amendment like a bloody shirt. But the greatest contemporary threat to free speech comes not from antifa radicals or campus leftists, but from a president prepared to use the power and authority of government to chill or suppress controversial speech, and the political movement that put him in office, and now applauds and extends his efforts.

The most frequently cited examples of the left-wing war on free speech are the protests against right-wing speakers that occur on elite college campuses, some of which have turned violent.New York’s Jonathan Chait has described the protests as a “war on the liberal mind” and the “manifestation of a serious ideological challenge to liberalism—less serious than the threat from the right, but equally necessary to defeat.” Most right-wing critiques fail to make such ideological distinctions, and are far more apocalyptic—some have unironically proposed state laws that define how universities are and are not allowed to govern themselves in the name of defending free speech.

A growing body of research debunks the idea that school quality is the main determinant of economic mobility.

One of the most commonly taught stories American schoolchildren learn is that of Ragged Dick, Horatio Alger’s 19th-century tale of a poor, ambitious teenaged boy in New York City who works hard and eventually secures himself a respectable, middle-class life. This “rags to riches” tale embodies one of America’s most sacred narratives: that no matter who you are, what your parents do, or where you grow up, with enough education and hard work, you too can rise the economic ladder.

A body of research has since emerged to challenge this national story, casting the United States not as a meritocracy but as a country where castes are reinforced by factors like the race of one’s childhood neighbors and how unequally income is distributed throughout society. One such study was published in 2014, by a team of economists led by Stanford’s Raj Chetty. After analyzing federal income tax records for millions of Americans, and studying, for the first time, the direct relationship between a child’s earnings and that of their parents, they determined that the chances of a child growing up at the bottom of the national income distribution to ever one day reach the top actually varies greatly by geography. For example, they found that a poor child raised in San Jose, or Salt Lake City, has a much greater chance of reaching the top than a poor child raised in Baltimore, or Charlotte. They couldn’t say exactly why, but they concluded that five correlated factors—segregation, family structure, income inequality, local school quality, and social capital—were likely to make a difference. Their conclusion: America is land of opportunity for some. For others, much less so.

One hundred years ago, a retail giant that shipped millions of products by mail moved swiftly into the brick-and-mortar business, changing it forever. Is that happening again?

Amazon comes to conquer brick-and-mortar retail, not to bury it. In the last two years, the company has opened 11 physical bookstores. This summer, it bought Whole Foods and its 400 grocery locations. And last week, the company announced a partnership with Kohl’s to allow returns at the physical retailer’s stores.

Why is Amazon looking more and more like an old-fashioned retailer? The company’s do-it-all corporate strategy adheres to a familiar playbook—that of Sears, Roebuck & Company. Sears might seem like a zombie today, but it’s easy to forget how transformative the company was exactly 100 years ago, when it, too, was capitalizing on a mail-to-consumer business to establish a physical retail presence.

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

It is insufficient to statethe obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest for 2017, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17. The Grand Prize Winner will receive $10,000 (USD), publication in National Geographic Magazine and a feature on National Geographic’s Instagram account. The folks at National Geographic were, once more, kind enough to let me choose among the contest entries so far for display here. The captions below were written by the individual photographers, and lightly edited for style.

What the Trump administration has been threatening is not a “preemptive strike.”

Donald Trump lies so frequently and so brazenly that it’s easy to forget that there are political untruths he did not invent. Sometimes, he builds on falsehoods that predated his election, and that enjoy currency among the very institutions that generally restrain his power.

That’s the case in the debate over North Korea. On Monday, The New York Timesdeclared that “the United States has repeatedly suggested in recent months” that it “could threaten pre-emptive military action” against North Korea. On Sunday, The Washington Post—after asking Americans whether they would “support or oppose the U.S. bombing North Korean military targets” in order “to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons”—announced that “Two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike.” Citing the Post’s findings, The New York Times the same day reported that Americans are “deeply opposed to the kind of pre-emptive military strike” that Trump “has seemed eager to threaten.”

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy sparred with Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on CNN hours after their bill dismantling Obamacare appeared to collapse.

Ordinarily, you debate to stave off defeat. But for Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy on Monday night, the defeat came first.

By the time the two GOP senators stepped on CNN’s stage Monday night for a prime-time debate over their health-care proposal, they knew they had already lost.

A few hours earlier, Senator Susan Collins became the third Republican to formally reject the pair’s legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, effectively killing its chances for passage through the Senate this week. Graham and Cassidy had hoped to use the forum to make a closing argument for their plan, and to line it up against Senator Bernie Sanders and his call for a single-payer, “Medicare-for-All” health-care system. Instead, the two senators found themselves defending a proposal that was no less hypothetical—and probably much less popular—than Sanders’s supposed liberal fantasy.